why does it matter if they are black or white. The people are suffering because they are not having good education or good housing. .
Some would argue that Afrodescendants suffer additionally because of negative perceptions based on their phenotype, in other words colorism. In fact this group (more accurately the various sub categories collectively referred to) is over represented amongst those suffering from bad housing, education, low incomes, etc as was pointed out in the post.
overrespresented, underrespresented, who cares? Help the damn people. They are dying of disease and poverty. Sheesh. Of course people will look down on people with darker skin colour, but they are what you call an 'asshole'. I don't care if they are racist. Whether they are racist or not, matters nothing to me. Cause once you think that way, it means you have no brain and you are a typical 'asshole'. Now, for the people who are suffering, whether they are white, black, hispanic, green, purple, let's just help them, ok.
This thread is drifting into value judgment or political advocacy about the customs of other nations. Political advocacy is not allowed in this forum. As rule 1.3 says, "Do not say how things should be or argue that a particular course of civic action is desirable, undesirable, just, or unjust anywhere in the site but in the forums where political advocacy is allowed."
why does it matter if they are black or white. The people are suffering because they are not having good education or good housing. .
Some would argue that Afrodescendants suffer additionally because of negative perceptions based on their phenotype, in other words colorism. In fact this group (more accurately the various sub categories collectively referred to) is over represented amongst those suffering from bad housing, education, low incomes, etc as was pointed out in the post.
overrespresented, underrespresented, who cares? Help the damn people. They are dying of disease and poverty. Sheesh. Of course people will look down on people with darker skin colour, but they are what you call an 'asshole'. I don't care if they are racist. Whether they are racist or not, matters nothing to me. Cause once you think that way, it means you have no brain and you are a typical 'asshole'. Now, for the people who are suffering, whether they are white, black, hispanic, green, purple, let's just help them, ok.
This thread is drifting into value judgment or political advocacy about the customs of other nations. Political advocacy is not allowed in this forum. As rule 1.3 says, "Do not say how things should be or argue that a particular course of civic action is desirable, undesirable, just, or unjust anywhere in the site but in the forums where political advocacy is allowed."
Is there a particular reason for this rule? I mean I'll just go into the Political section and type the same things.
This thread is drifting into value judgment or political advocacy about the customs of other nations. Political advocacy is not allowed in this forum. As rule 1.3 says, "Do not say how things should be or argue that a particular course of civic action is desirable, undesirable, just, or unjust anywhere in the site but in the forums where political advocacy is allowed."
Is there a particular reason for this rule? I mean I'll just go into the Political section and type the same things.
Excellent question. I shall try to answer it from my perspective, but I would welcome explanation from other moderators as well as comments from members. From my viewpoint, you are asking two questions: (1) Why limit moral judgment about U.S. policies to the two political advocacy forums? (2) Is political advocacy about other nation's policies allowed anywhere in this site?
We limit moral judgment to the two political advocacy forums in order to keep flame-wars under control. The problem is that moral judgments cannot be argued rationally. No matter how loudly posters cloak their consciences in rationalizations, each person's stance stems from his or her inner core and cannot be changed by reasoning. (See the recent debate between two moderators on homosexual marriage in California, for example.) Your thesis in the case that triggered this thread regarded poverty and lack of social mobility in Latin America. Now, I might strongly believe that there is nothing wrong with policies that cause starvation and ignorance. I might feel that the planet is overpopulated, and so the sooner the poor perish, the better off everyone else will be. What would be the educational benefit of a debate between us? Because differences in moral compass are not subject to intellectual persuasion, they turn into flame-wars, which repulse scholarly visitors and so detract from the site's mission. As the other moderators can attest, I am constantly on the verge of closing down the two political advocacy forums because of their flame-wars. I tolerate them ungracefully because it can be informative to see just how differently people see "right" and "wrong." I would entertain arguments that moral judgment (right vs. wrong) arguments should be banned entirely. But allowing them to spread beyond the two flame-wars forums would, in my view, detract from the site mission.
As it turns out, political advocacy about other nation's policies is not allowed anywhere in the site. (The two flame-war forums explicitly target the United States.) This is because Americans preaching to others about how to manage their societies is a turn-off for visitors from other countries. Think about it: the most harshly racialist nation on earth dares to tell others how to fix their problems. In any event, there are many internet discussion sites that allow criticism of other nations' social policies. I just cannot see how discussion of other nations' policies informs about U.S. racialism.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
